MERGED: Assault Weapons

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Please call your Congressmen. They are voting today to overrride the DC's own regulations. It's bad enough that they have no representation in the Congress or Senate (too black) but now the NRA wants to haaave Congress override local laws. WTF is happening to this country.:(
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


No I wasn't characterizing any group, just the fact that anyone is succeptable to snapping at any moment or is capable of making rash decisions.

I know responsible drug users but that's still illegal. Why? Personal health? No, there are many things legal that are just as unhealthy.

Your last point, I think I have an idea of what you're saying but I don't think its clear enough but let me take a stab at it...

In terms of the statement that government can take away the rights of "responsible" drug users to get high, so they can take away the right of gunowners even if you are responsible... Well, yeah, you are right... government can do it and has the power to take away a person's rights... but that doesn't make it right or acceptable or justify taking away a gunowner's right to own firearms. You're just stating what the government can do. You mention the existence of responsible drug users, as a point that life is unfair for the responsible. Yeah... thats a good point you make. Life is unfair but if we have the capability to make it fair I say we should and letting gunowners enjoy their fun is one of them.

Anyways, mebbe you weren't characterizing gunowners as being people who can snap and commit a crime, but the story told in this context can lead a person to think that. Besides, people who are rash enough to pull out a gun and go shooting someone out of anger can just as likely kill with any other weapon IMO and they aren't limited to weapons- their bare hands are there as well.
 
The 2nd Ammendment may seem archaic but it provides a sturdy defense of sorts for gunowners to be able to collect guns and have fun with them... e.g. go to shooting ranges (I was going to mention hunting, but I think some people would be offended by the idea of hunting thus possibly opening up another debate).
 
Flying FuManchu said:


But you don't know me. If I was a criminal, you could make a case. But if I'm just an enthusiastic gun owner, you're taking away a hobby or my liberty and my pursuit of happiness.

Thats precisely right. Should the government who also doesnt know you, let you have a gun?

It isn't you who is the problem. Letting YOU partake in your hobby allows a nutcase to partake in theirs which ends lives. Safety is more important than your hobby in an area where there are no guarantees.
 
That is why background checks occur. Gun violence with illegal weapons is much more prevailant than that among registered gun owners.
 
They fail dude. Come on.

11,000 + a year. Forget Moore for a minute. How the fuck can ANYONE justify the personal use of a gun when there is no farming or hunting?
 
I am not disagreeing, also handguns are the principle problem, they are really only useful for crime - and sport.

More people are killed with other peoples bare hands than rifles in the US. Proper regulation and fingerprint ID safety on the guns are the best option short of banning all guns, which would work but wouldnt get the illegal guns off the street which is where the problem is from.
 
nbcrusader said:



If the 2nd Amendment doesn't make sense, the appropriate solution would be to repeal the Amendment, instead of countless attempts at restricting the rights created by the Amendment.

In an ideal world...I agree.
 
Flying FuManchu said:


Your last point, I think I have an idea of what you're saying but I don't think its clear enough but let me take a stab at it...

In terms of the statement that government can take away the rights of "responsible" drug users to get high, so they can take away the right of gunowners even if you are responsible... Well, yeah, you are right... government can do it and has the power to take away a person's rights... but that doesn't make it right or acceptable or justify taking away a gunowner's right to own firearms. You're just stating what the government can do. You mention the existence of responsible drug users, as a point that life is unfair for the responsible. Yeah... thats a good point you make. Life is unfair but if we have the capability to make it fair I say we should and letting gunowners enjoy their fun is one of them.

Anyways, mebbe you weren't characterizing gunowners as being people who can snap and commit a crime, but the story told in this context can lead a person to think that. Besides, people who are rash enough to pull out a gun and go shooting someone out of anger can just as likely kill with any other weapon IMO and they aren't limited to weapons- their bare hands are there as well.

The point I was really trying to make is that yes there are responsible gunowners, but the real issue is what is best for the country? While you protect the rights of those that target shoot you keep it legal for gun manufacturers to produce powerful weapons that can kill several humans within seconds. As long as it is legal to mass produce these weapons they will get in the hands of those who will use them to kill. Don't kid yourself, the blackmarket for guns is made up of guns produced by legal manufacturers. Blackmarket guns aren't built by gangsters in a basement. If heroin is legal the amount of hands it gets into will increase so the amount of irresponsible drug users increases.

I have nothing against responsible hunting. How many times do you hear of someone killing another human in a robbery or whatever by singlebolt hunting rifles...the number is small.

Yes banning guns will not stop murders, but I'll take my chances with a knife, baseball bat, or someones bare hands anyday over an assault rifle. I may be able to out run someone with a bat, but I'm pretty sure I can't outrun a bullet.
 
But that is what freedom is all about. Like I said... there are things out in this world that have been used to hurt people, maim them, and kill them that are everyday objects that we take for granted. It comes down to the person in the end. And we live with those potential threats... So why can't people live with it when dealing with guns. The rights of many shouldn't be circumvented by the few nutcases if there are no negative moral values associated with just owning a gun, collecting a gun, or "lawfully" shooting a gun. It is not immoral to own a gun. It is not immoral to collect guns. It is not immoral to shoot one at a range, at a target, etc... Owning a gun doesn't "make" a person do anything...

Thats precisely right. Should the government who also doesnt know you, let you have a gun?

It isn't you who is the problem. Letting YOU partake in your hobby allows a nutcase to partake in theirs which ends lives. Safety is more important than your hobby in an area where there are no guarantees.

The government doesn't really "know me" or any other person. Yet they give "nutcases" (I'm thinking you're referring to average joe nutcases) the right to drive a car, get on the internet, own sharp objects, etc. That is a "free" society. Harmful philosophies, harmful objects, harmful everything are allowed to float around in a free society. These things can be used as instruments to hurt people and kill people, but we won't ban them... why? B/C we acknowledge that its a few people high on the crazy or stupid that abuse their privileges/ rights. So we brush it off. I feel the same about guns. If we can brush of alcohol (which if not helping to cause problems at least exacerbates problems to the nth degree) or the internet which helps bring a wealth of information a lot of good to some bad, or other things, why not guns?

Someone criticized my calling alcohol a cause and said it was wrong to attribute violence and death as being caused by alcohol, but rather the person should be held responsible. Well, if that is true, why can't the same argument be made for guns, especially considering statistically less people die from gun related deaths compared to alcohol related deaths (about less than half to about a third). This not even considering the fact that the stats for gun related deaths may not take into consideration, lawful use by law enforcement, self defense, or illegal guns.

I'm for a stronger enforcement of gun laws, better background checks, and gun licenses... However, I just can't agree with a total banning of guns. Guns have saved lives as well, but people choose to focus on the irresponsible owners or probably the people who have caused gun violence through weapons obtained by illegal means. I also don't own a gun and have not fired a gun. I just don't agree with the arguments that guns should be banned b/c the right to own a gun has been abused by a minority of people.... Of course safety is important, but there are no guarantees on anything and everything we participate in that has a hint of danger...
 
Last edited:
FuManchu you seem like a pretty sane individual so obviously my objections dont apply to you. I personally dont agree with the comparisons to alcohol or cars as both have alternate and more primary functions. A gun's only use is to shoot a bullet. It isnt transport and isn't a social tool. If we start comparing guns to other dangerous things, we have no idea where to draw the line. We'd need to ban everything from swimming pools down to headache tablets.

We could go around this topic for hours but I wanted to say at least thanks for offering something very rational to this. We've had this topic before and I dont remember any of the counter argument making much sense :wink:
 
Angela Harlem said:
A gun's only use is to shoot a bullet.
you could also use it to bash someone's skull in :wink:

the only pro to allowing guns is that you allow a certain freedom
my personal opinion that the price being paid for this freedom on a yearly basis is way too high
and though this is just an opinion I am yet to read anything that would even make me slightly question whether 11,000+ casualties per year is worth it
 
Flying FuManchu said:
I'm for a stronger enforcement of gun laws, better background checks, and gun licenses... However, I just can't agree with a total banning of guns. Guns have saved lives as well, but people choose to focus on the irresponsible owners or probably the people who have caused gun violence through weapons obtained by illegal means. I also don't own a gun and have not fired a gun. I just don't agree with the arguments that guns should be banned b/c the right to own a gun has been abused by a minority of people.... Of course safety is important, but there are no guarantees on anything and everything we participate in that has a hint of danger...

This is pretty much exactly my view. As much as I'm not a big gun fan, and as much as I worry about gun-related violence, I'm not sure an out-and-out ban would work in the US as it has worked elsewhere. And speaking personally, I would be a hypocrite if I argued for total gun control, as in certain situations, I would strongly consider learning how to use and owning a gun.
 
nbcrusader said:



Exactly. Not to kill people. People misuse guns the same way they misuse knives, bats, cars, alcohol, etc.

Can you it to cut foot, play baseball, transport, or to drink?

Guns were designed for one thing and thing only, to kill. They serve no other day to day function. The amonunt of lives saved vs. murders by guns in everyday citizens doesn't even come close to comparison. Unless you allowed people to carry guns on their hip they never will. Someone breaks into your house they have the advantage they already have gun in hand, you have to wake up, unlock case, load gun...by that time your dead.

So what does it come down to, like Flying said freedom. Freedom is something we take very seriously here in the states as we should, but many freedoms have been taken away for the good of the majority.

It comes down to what's more important saving lives or your freedom to own enough guns to arm a small militia with assault rifles.
 
I wonder how many rounds are fired a day for target practice as part of someone's hobby. I'd say it would be a substantial majority. Followed by hunting. Followed by criminal use.
 
nbcrusader said:
I wonder how many rounds are fired a day for target practice as part of someone's hobby. I'd say it would be a substantial majority. Followed by hunting. Followed by criminal use.

First of all I'm not for banning hunting weapons, like I said I don't think there's a lot of crime being done with single bolt hunting rifles.

Target practice, ok what is the point of this hobby? Is it to make you a better shooter so when you have an attacker and you happen to have an assault rifle in your hand? Or pure entertainment? If people are going to argue the entertainment value then one thing is you don't need an assault rifle to do so, secondly they have modified guns to which you can shoot at targets using laser and no bullets. You save on ammo and you don't have something that can mow down several humans in seconds.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
Target practice, ok what is the point of this hobby? Is it to make you a better shooter so when you have an attacker and you happen to have an assault rifle in your hand? Or pure entertainment? If people are going to argue the entertainment value then one thing is you don't need an assault rifle to do so, secondly they have modified guns to which you can shoot at targets using laser and no bullets. You save on ammo and you don't have something that can mow down several humans in seconds.

Shooting has been in the Olympics for decades, making it an internationally recognized sport.

The assault rifle ban is based on emotion, not logic. As has been discussed above, they are no more dangerous as guns than other guns.

Why pass judgment on one's shooting hobby? Should we ban all activities if the instruments of such activities can be misused?
 
Lots of people engage in target shooting, clay pigeons, et al. who are decent and law-abiding people. I agree that I don't think it's fair to demonize people who enjoy a (more or less) completely harmless hobby.
 
nbcrusader said:


Shooting has been in the Olympics for decades, making it an internationally recognized sport.

The assault rifle ban is based on emotion, not logic. As has been discussed above, they are no more dangerous as guns than other guns.

Why pass judgment on one's shooting hobby? Should we ban all activities if the instruments of such activities can be misused?

Then if it's purely for sport then why not use other methods such as the laser target system. Or if they must use live rounds then leave the guns stored at the range. Yes kayaking can kill, yes even bow and arrows can kill, but when was the last time some deliberately used a kayak to kill, or walk into a bank with a concealed bow and arrow? I'm not judging there hobby, I'm judging the tool. The tool was designed for one purpose and one purpose only. The musket was designed to kill animal or human, not for entertainment.

Excuse me, all guns are equal? Please. You can't even compare a single bolt rifle that holds only 4 rounds to a gun that holds 30+.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


Then if it's purely for sport then why not use other methods such as the laser target system. Or if they must use live rounds then leave the guns stored at the range. Yes kayaking can kill, yes even bow and arrows can kill, but when was the last time some deliberately used a kayak to kill, or walk into a bank with a concealed bow and arrow? I'm not judging there hobby, I'm judging the tool. The tool was designed for one purpose and one purpose only. The musket was designed to kill animal or human, not for entertainment.

Excuse me, all guns are equal? Please. You can't even compare a single bolt rifle that holds only 4 rounds to a gun that holds 30+.

To be honest, could one say laser target systems and live rounds as being the same... People who shoot have mentioned the adrenalin and feel of shooting is fun...

Again, its also about collecting things... Some people here think that assault rifles are scary looking but there are others who think they "look" dang cool and like to collect stuff. Thats why some gunowners want to own stuff... why do we buy movies, cds, books, etc.... the issue of ownership. We like to own them and do with them as we want... I'm not saying dvds= guns (just in case someone tries to make that point against me) but rather pointing out why people want to own guns rather than just have a shooting range to just shoot and leave stuff.

Also, its about protection. I know several families who work in the inner city/ really poor neigborhoods for a living running grocery stores, alcohol shops, etc... guns have provided a deterrent and have protected people from armed robbery.
 
Flying FuManchu said:


To be honest, could one say laser target systems and live rounds as being the same... People who shoot have mentioned the adrenalin and feel of shooting is fun...

Again, its also about collecting things... Some people here think that assault rifles are scary looking but there are others who think they "look" dang cool and like to collect stuff. Thats why some gunowners want to own stuff... why do we buy movies, cds, books, etc.... the issue of ownership. We like to own them and do with them as we want... I'm not saying dvds= guns (just in case someone tries to make that point against me) but rather pointing out why people want to own guns rather than just have a shooting range to just shoot and leave stuff.

Also, its about protection. I know several families who work in the inner city/ really poor neigborhoods for a living running grocery stores, alcohol shops, etc... guns have provided a deterrent and have protected people from armed robbery.

I think tanks are cool, can I collect them?

Once again the protection factor really doesn't work as far as numbers. The number of people who saved lives and took lives don't even come close.
 
Again, alcohol related deaths are much greater than death by guns (and thats not taking into consideration self defense and illegal guns). I think, anti-gun people should try to ban alcohol before they come back and try to ban guns. :evil:

Seriously, I can't say I fully understand the mind of a gunowner (and I'm sure I'm setting this next point up for a joke/ biting commentary) but I'm sure gunowners would probably argue that a guns don't just kill, but it relieves stress, is a sport, etc... :huh:

Its been mentioned that guns purpose is to kill. Hey, the Iron Giant says no to that premise... :wink:
 
Last edited:
Flying FuManchu said:
Again, alcohol related deaths are much greater than death by guns (and thats not taking into consideration self defense and illegal guns). I think, anti-gun people should try to ban alcohol before they come back and try to ban guns. :evil:

Well we're going in circles so I'll probably bow out soon here, but you're still making an unfair analogy.

Alcohol was not invented to kill. Alcohol can be used responsibly with it's true intent and no harm done.

The #1 intent for guns is to kill. Sport and collecting came later. If you want to argue the right to the sport and collectors than modify the sports and only allow certain guns to be collected.

The second ammendment did not have sport or collecting in mind.
 
Back
Top Bottom